Threaded Order Chronological Order
| It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:02 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: While It Doesn't Prove Anything - Clancy 04:22 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Sam Mendes can say he’s gay but it’s not in the original intention of the piece. You make a production where Sweeney is gay too. In the original production and movie, he is incredibly straight. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:07 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:02 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Do you mean the Master of Ceremonies is incredibly straight in the original production and movie? Or were you speaking only of Sweeney? If the Master of Ceremonies, I can provide quotes from reviews of the original production that suggest he was not perceived as incredibly straight by some of the critics. Words used by critics in describing the character and/or Joel Grey's performance included homosexual, effeminate, androgynous, effete and mincing. A review of replacement Martin Ross used the made-up word swishbuckling. It can be argued that the Master of Ceremonies was of uncertain sexuality or asexual in the original production, or that the character's sexuality was simply nonexistent as he was not meant to be a real person, but my guess is that he was not perceived as incredibly straight by audiences who thought about it at all (if you did mean the Master of Ceremonies). |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:45 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:02 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Oh yeah, when I watch Joel Grey in the movie, “incredibly straight” are the exact words that come to mind. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 12:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 09:45 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Why does gay come to mind? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:11 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 12:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, gay doesn’t come to mind. I think the Emcee, as played by Joel Grey, is queer non-binary and would probably use they pronouns if German gave them the option. But why does straight come to mind for you? Why do you look at the most openly gay society pre-Stonewall and insist that he’s definitely straight? Why do you look at a character who covers his face in a pound of paint and dresses like a dandy, a clear gay signifier, as being straight? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:57 am EDT 04/05/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 03:11 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm genuinely not sure where you get that Joel Grey's emcee "would" use they pronouns and identify as non-binary. Just as much as I don't get why someone would so confidently assume him to be straight. Not sure why one assumptions makes more sense than another, and it really bothers me when people in a modern day assign presumptions about what people in the past "would" do "if" xyz. Even with non-binary as an option to identify, the Emcee (as played by Grey) might very well not identify as non-binary, or might be gender queer but not specifically use they/them pronouns. Such a strange thing to assume and assert, especially in the effort to question or dismantle someone else's assumption about sexuality or gender of a character. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:08 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:02 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know that it wasn't the original intention, or at least the intention as it ended up in the original production. Grey as the Master of Ceremonies was perceived by at least some critics as gay. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:13 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - AlanScott 07:08 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Bobby in Company is perceived as gay too but he’s not. What does Harold Prince have to say about this? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:13 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's also in the script that the Emcee leads the Kit Kat Girls in goose-stepping and heiling Hitler. Do you think that means he's a Nazi? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| YES nm | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 12:02 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 09:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:07 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: YES nm - KingSpeed 12:02 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| The Emcee is holding up a mirror to his society, reflecting their hypocrisies, which is why he ends up in the camp. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:16 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - Singapore/Fling 03:07 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| But is the cabaret meant to be one of the cabarets that focused on satire and politics? If we're looking to Prince, there were the numbers set in the real Kit Kat Klub, and there were the numbers set in the metaphorical Kit Kat Klub. I take the latter as reflecting Germany. The Master of Ceremonies performs for us changes in the German psyche. He is not a real Master of Ceremonies in a real cabaret in those numbers. At least that would seem to have been the intent in the original production. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: theatreguy40 04:21 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - AlanScott 03:16 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I tend to agree with you -- but with one minor possible clarification. I think even what you call the "metaphorical Kit Kat Klub" --- can also be interpreted as the actual Kit Kat Klub --- those numbers actually being performed in the Kit Kat Klub but (as you say, and I agree) reflecting Germany and the changes in the German psyche. Either way - in your interpretation and in my slightly altered one to yours --- it clearly doesn't have anything to do with the Emcee as a "person". He is just performing "numbers". |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:02 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - theatreguy40 04:21 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, I think I agree. And I would add that even if the Master of Ceremonies is partly not a real person, the actor must play him as a real person. Something that may be of interest: Over the last couple of days I have been re-reading reviews of the original production. I think the show is perceived as having been controversial but still having generally gotten very favorable reviews. In fact, the reviews were extremely mixed. If not for Kerr's Times rave (even with his negative appraisal of Jill Haworth), it might not have been the hit that it was. And it's surprising how many of the critics, even the favorable ones, seem to have not understood importan things about the show. It's surprising how many critics either didn't get the connections between the metaphorical numbers and the book, or just plain misunderstood things that should be obvious, and this includes some smart critics. I guess it was more confusing in 1966 than we might think possible. And a musical does give us a lot to take in on a first viewing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 11:57 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 11:51 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - AlanScott 05:02 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think Joel Grey has ever gone into too much detail of his preparation for the MC character, other than to say that he based it on one particular person (with perhaps parts of several similar), but a second-, third- or fourth- rate comedian (and maybe one who sang and danced?) he had seen in the Catskills Borscht Belt or elsewhere in some variety shows which Grey had done for many years. He said this person was pretty awful, with connotations of flop sweat and just really giving off all kinds of audience apathy (or antipathy, i.e. bombing with them). I'm guessing as an actor maybe Mr. Grey made up a name for his MC (or Emcee) character, but has kept it hidden from others; of course, this is all conjecture, but with such a tremendously successful performance, winning a Tony on Broadway (as well as long-in-coming overnight stardom) and an Oscar for the film, he was very specific in the kinds of choices he made in making this character very indelible and true for him, and thus his audience. Btw, in the film, there are a few moments where the MC is off-stage not doing a number; I do recall at one point he kind of sticks his tongue out at Liza Minnelli's Sally Bowles for some reason. Maybe he's jealous she got a big hand? The MC is supposed to be seductive and kind of charming to the audience, with his opening to literally welcome us into the Kit Kat Klub before we see it's a facade that is in the process of breaking down, like the society at that time. The film added stuff like mud wrestling and violence from members of the Nazis against patrons in the club intercut during some other performance on stage as well. All this added to what the new screenplay and direction had to say, but it's different from the original. I, for one, actually love the "Meeskite" number and Jack Gilford's performance of it on the OCR (and I think Haworth sounds absolutely perfect for her role). I don't know when it's last been done in the show, as it really works as a very humanizing, gently funny song for Herr Schultz, who unfortunately most likely will be a victim of the Holocaust (and it's a better number than "Pineapple"!). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:22 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - PlayWiz 11:51 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I adore "Meeskite," and I think cutting it leaves us with a very bald way of Ernst learning that Schultz is Jewish. Also, I think we want another song in that scene. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 12:36 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - AlanScott 12:22 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Have any recent productions included the "Meeskite" song? I don't mind "Pineapple" actually -- it works fine as a number for Schultz and Schneider, especially well when I saw Hal Linden sing it quite beautifully opposite Polly Bergen. If only he had been allowed to do "Meeskite"! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: simbo 04:22 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - PlayWiz 12:36 am EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Kander and Ebb said in their book "colored Lights" that Meeskite only worked when Jack Gilford was singing it (and it was only really necessary when they were playing the censored version of "If You could See Her Through My Eyes"). It does have the unfortunate effect of pushing Herr Schulz in a particularly schmalzy direction which is not the tone of the rest of the show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 06:39 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 06:36 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - simbo 04:22 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| But Herr Schultz is intended to be rather schmaltzy and sentimental (you think "Pineapple" isn't?), especially given his status as outsider which the politics of the time, personified most overtly in that scene by Ernst, is very much against and being used as a scapegoat. Gilford's version is wonderful, but I remember years ago seeing another performer in a nightclub do an excellent job of it. It works as a standalone number too. Regardless of what Kander & Ebb wrote years later, and after years of my listening to it on the OCR, I still think it's a wonderful song, and I miss it in productions. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:02 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think you understand how Weimar cabaret functioned - PlayWiz 06:36 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm with you. I think it's a wonderfully touching song and just what the show needs at that moment. That scene is kind of flat without the song. And I love Peter Sallis doing it on the original London cast recording. And I've never read complaints about it in the tour reviews or replacement reviews after Gilford left on Broadway. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 09:51 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| And, as I said before, he also makes an eloquent case for his romantic relationship with a gorilla. What does that say about the man? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 12:03 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Chromolume 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| He’s making a show of anti-semetism. It is not the same. Can someone ask Joel Grey? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:23 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 12:03 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| But "If You Could See Her" is as much of an act in the club as all his other songs. They are all part of an act he does at the club. So I don't think you can say that any of the songs show us really who the MC is in his private life, etc. I'm not sure where you find the distinction. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:35 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 12:03 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| But doing a Nazi kickline and heil is also making a show and a mockery of Nazis... but didn't you just say that him doing that in the script makes him a Nazi? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Chazwaza 02:35 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| Not to mention that he ends up in a camp - IN THE SCRIPT - so why is he there if he’s a card carrying Nazi? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: ms721 04:24 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 03:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| two prong question does the MC end up with a symbol on his jacket at the end of the original show, or the movie or the revival? and what is the symbol? if it's a yellow star that means his bigger crime is being Jewish and his sexuality is still not clear. if it's a pink triangle he's not Jewish but incarcerated for being homosexual. and i find the whole discussion amusing as it's all a matter of how you interpret it so what's the point of arguing?. thanks. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:39 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - ms721 04:24 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| The 1998 version ends in the camps. The actual symbol on the uniform is not specified. In the production, it was both a Jewish star and a pink triangle. My memory is that they used two patches, though it should have been (and I’ve seen it as) a combo of the two in one patch. But I can’t say for certain that wasn’t what they did in ‘98. I think the argument stems from the statement that the Emcee is “decidedly straight”. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:47 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:44 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - Singapore/Fling 03:00 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I've always felt that one of the strongest themes and messages of the musical is how the Kit Kat Klub represents distraction and diluting with a party, forgetting what is going on outside and coming in to serve your own needs, allows for the real forces of terror going on outside to take control. It feeds perfectly into/through Sally's approach at life, and even Frau Schneider's state of mind during the timeline of the show. The Emcee is the ringleader and facilitator of this. He observes and reflects the world but also the characters in the show they are giving us (sally, cliff, schneider etc). That is why the final lines "we have no troubles here" and then the multi-lingual goodbye, the same as it started, are so effective and upsetting. In many ways it's wonderful that "life is a cabaret", and in many ways it's... not. Which is also the clear tone of the title song, without it being drowned in literal trauma and anger and bitter sarcasm like the current london revival (which I felt was also slightly too much in the Mendes revival, but by comparison now looks downright subtle) I think he is mocking and also trivializing when he does the kickline. Turning it into entertainment but for people who are there to be drunk and complacent and entertained and titillated. And then, in Mendes' much more obvious version, it literally bites him/the club in the ass when he is sent to an oven. But I do prefer the original ending, I find it more unsettling actually, and effective. The movie's ending too. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:38 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:13 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| But we see Bobby in his everyday interactions, which includes his sexual relationships with women. We do NOT see the M.C. "for real" - only his onstage persona. So we can more assuredly say that Bobby is not gay. We really don't know about the M.C. - we can only assume one way or the other. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s not in the script. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:49 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s not in the script. - KingSpeed 07:13 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| He doesn't say anything about the character being gay or having been played as gay. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.259877 seconds.